Considering a Classical Upper Bound on the Frobenius Number

In this paper, we study the (classical) Frobenius problem, namely the problem of finding the largest integer that cannot be represented as a nonnegative integer combination of given, relatively prime, (strictly) positive integers (known as the Frobenius number). The main contribution of this paper are observations regarding a previously known upper bound on the Frobenius number where, in particular, we observe that a previously presented argument features a subtle error, which alters the value of the upper bound. Despite this, we demonstrate that the subtle error does not impact upon on the validity of the upper bound, although it does impact on the upper bounds tightness. Notably, we formally state the corrected result and additionally compare the relative tightness of the corrected upper bound with the original. In particular, we show that the updated bound is tighter in all but only a relatively “small” number of cases using both formal techniques and via Monte Carlo simulation techniques.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Mathematics
Published
2024-12-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/math12244029
Primary Topic
Tensor decomposition and applications
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Considering a Classical Upper Bound on the Frobenius Number

Daiki Haijima, Aled Williams
Mathematics
Tensor decomposition and applications
article

Considering a Classical Upper Bound on the Frobenius Number

Daiki Haijima, Aled Williams
article en

Abstract

In this paper, we study the (classical) Frobenius problem, namely the problem of finding the largest integer that cannot be represented as a nonnegative integer combination of given, relatively prime, (strictly) positive integers (known as the Frobenius number). The main contribution of this paper are observations regarding a previously known upper bound on the Frobenius number where, in particular, we observe that a previously presented argument features a subtle error, which alters the value of the upper bound. Despite this, we demonstrate that the subtle error does not impact upon on the validity of the upper bound, although it does impact on the upper bounds tightness. Notably, we formally state the corrected result and additionally compare the relative tightness of the corrected upper bound with the original. In particular, we show that the updated bound is tighter in all but only a relatively “small” number of cases using both formal techniques and via Monte Carlo simulation techniques.

MathematicsVol. 12(24)
London School of Economics and Political Science (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 78%
Tensor decomposition and applications
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.